Discussion Title: Should countries have closed their borders to China to reduce the spread of COVID-19?

1. Countries should have closed their borders to China to reduce the spread of [COVID-19](https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019).
1.1. Pro: There was a lot of uncertainty about COVID-19 at the beginning of the outbreak. Keeping it as isolated as possible would have been the best course of action until more was known.
1.1.1. Con: Isolating the virus to China may have impeded the development of further knowledge surrounding this illness.
1.1.1.1. Pro: China has been known to withhold pertinent information from other nations in the past.
1.1.1.1.1. Pro: The Chinese Communist Party has a [record of covering up or underreporting](https://www.ft.com/content/48e80dc4-5f76-11da-a628-0000779e2340) the toll of such disasters. It is likely that the situation was far worse than what it appeared to be.
1.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: Chinese local governments were involved in a major cover-up of deaths as a result of the [2012 floods](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2083483/chinese-local-governments-admit-major-cover-2012-flood).
1.1.1.1.1.2. Pro: In [1976](https://www.nytimes.com/1977/06/02/archives/chinese-disclose-that-1976-quake-was-deadliest-in-four-centuries.html), the Chinese government was involved in a coverup of the number of deaths in one of the deadliest earthquakes that hit the country in the past four centuries.
1.1.1.1.1.3. Con: Given other factors, it is likely that even the Chinese government is itself unsure of the exact number of COVID-19 victims.
1.1.1.1.1.3.1. Pro: At the time of the outbreak, there were many medical uncertainties involved in correctly diagnosing COVID-19 infections, many of which still persist.
1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1. Pro: Medical uncertainties regarding the virus are likely because [medical professionals have not been aware of the virus for long.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak#Overview)
1.1.1.1.1.3.1.2. Pro: A positive antibody test [may not](https://khn.org/news/how-covid-19-highlights-the-uncertainty-of-medical-testing/) indicate that a person contracted and recovered from COVID-19 - Instead, the test may be detecting antibodies for another, 'similar-looking' virus.
1.1.1.1.1.3.1.3. Pro: PCR tests for COVID-19 detection are not fully accurate.
1.1.1.1.1.3.1.3.1. Pro: Even when tested 8 days after infection, [20%](https://idc.net.pk/no-covid-19-test-is-100-right-so-their-errors-and-results-are-both-important/#:~:text=A%20new%20study%20confirms%20what,shows%2020%20percent%20false%20negatives) of PCR tests for COVID-19 yielded false negatives.
1.1.1.1.1.3.1.3.2. Pro: [9.3%](https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0) of PCR tests for COVID-19 yield false negatives.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2. Pro: Early in the pandemic, not enough people were being tested for an accurate estimation of the number of infected people.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.1. Pro: Because of [fears of being isolated or stigmatized](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/12/coronavirus-wuhan-china-outbreak/), some people showing COVID-19 symptoms are avoiding the medical system. This limits the ability of the government to include them in their quoted statistics.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.1.1. Con: It is likely that the fear of death would be more significant than the fear of stigma in driving symptomatic people to seek out medical support.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.1.1.1. Con: Most people who contract COVID-19 exhibit only [mild symptoms](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/what-its-like-to-survive-covid-19) and aren't at risk of dying.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.1.1.2. Con: If someone is symptomatic for COVID-19, they may not deem getting tested to confirm their diagnosis as important.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.2. Pro: Many countries have faced shortages of COVID-19 diagnostic kits, impeding their ability to test all those who have been exposed or shown symptoms.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.2.1. Pro: There was a [severe shortage of COVID-19 diagnostic kits](https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-china-shortage-test-kits-lottery-2020-1) in China at the beginning of the outbreak.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.2.1.1. Pro: Only those with [severe symptoms](https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-china-shortage-test-kits-lottery-2020-1) were being tested due to a shortage of kits in Wuhan and the surrounding areas in the Hubei province.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.2.1.1.1. Pro: In Hubei in January 2020, there was only a small batch of test kits, enough to test [less than one-tenth](https://www.businessinsider.com/wuhan-coronavirus-china-shortage-test-kits-lottery-2020-1) of the number of people waiting to be checked at the hospital.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.2.1.2. Pro: [Rapid test kits](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7211913/) were not developed until later on during the pandemic, in May 2020. Countries would thus have been better off closing their borders entirely.
1.1.1.1.1.3.2.2.2. Pro: In April 2021, parts of India [faced shortages](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/now-shortage-of-rt-pcr-kits-adds-to-maharashtras-covid-19-woes/articleshow/81998594.cms?from=mdr) of PCR detection kits.
1.1.1.1.1.3.3. Con: According to a member of the World Health Organisation's emergency committee, during the initial stages of the COVID-19 outbreak, Chinese officials ["tried to keep figures quiet for a while"](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/02/wuhan-coronavirus-outbreak-threatening-xi-hold-power-200204011647281.html).
1.1.1.1.1.3.3.1. Pro: The Chinese government accused the whistle-blowers of the COVID-19 outbreak of [spreading rumors](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/feb/07/coronavirus-chinese-rage-death-whistleblower-doctor-li-wenliang), thereby dismissing any figures being reported.
1.1.1.1.1.4. Pro: There are [many unknowns](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/12/coronavirus-wuhan-china-outbreak/) regarding the COVID-19 outbreak that the Chinese government did not clarify.
1.1.1.1.1.5. Pro: The COVID-19 pandemic [could be a source of political instability](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/02/wuhan-coronavirus-outbreak-threatening-xi-hold-power-200204011647281.html) for the Chinese Communist Party \(CCP\). Therefore, they have incentives to misrepresent the danger.
1.1.1.1.1.5.1. Pro: The public health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was posed to [undermine the legitimacy](https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/28533/how-china-s-coronavirus-epidemic-could-threaten-xi-s-legitimacy) of CCP leader, Xi Jinping, in February 2020.
1.1.1.1.1.5.1.1. Pro: The COVID-19 pandemic makes [Xi's crisis of legitimacy worse](https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/coronavirus-and-xi-jinpings-crisis-of-legitimacy/). Xi was already contending with a slowing economy, the re-election of a pro-independence president in Taiwan and a recent exposé of the prison-camp system in Xianjiang Province at the time of the outbreak.
1.1.1.1.1.5.1.2. Con: Xi [deflected blame](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/10/xi-jinping-may-lose-control-of-the-coronavirus-story/) for the spread of COVID-19 onto local officials.
1.1.1.2. Pro: Pharamecutical professionals may not have had the necessary information to work on creating a vaccine.
1.1.1.2.1. Pro: During the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak, [no company had come up with a vaccine](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-treatments-factbox/factbox-global-efforts-to-develop-vaccines-drugs-to-fight-the-coronavirus-idUSKBN20D2QX). Containing the spread of the virus would have limited other countries' access to it \(and all other information obtained by having viral samples\) and thus given pharmaceutical companies in China an advantage over global competitors.
1.1.1.2.1.1. Con: The economic incentive to create a vaccine would have been significantly lower had the virus stayed contained in China.
1.1.1.2.1.2. Pro: Border closures are frequently opposed on [economic grounds](https://www.ampcapital.com/au/en/insights-hub/articles/2020/august/border-closures-affecting-more-than-our-travel-plans). The economic benefits of creating the first vaccine would have been a strong incentive for this policy.
1.1.1.2.1.2.1. Pro: Pfizer generated [$3.5 billion](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/business/pfizer-covid-vaccine-profits.html) in revenue from the COVID-19 vaccine in the first three months of 2021.
1.1.1.2.1.3. Pro: Clinical trails in humans usually take several [months](https://gizmodo.com/how-long-will-it-take-to-develop-a-vaccine-for-the-wuha-1841276022) and it is therefore best to contain the spread of the virus.
1.1.1.2.2. Con: [International research teams](https://www.sciencealert.com/uk-team-tests-china-virus-vaccine-on-mice) were already working on a vaccine in February 2020.
1.1.1.2.2.1. Con: Although there may be a number of teams working on a vaccine, the unavailability of genomic data of some virus variants can delay the development of effective vaccines.
1.1.1.2.2.1.1. Pro: Variants are detected through [vigorous screening and genome sequencing](http://WT-Lead: Angie \(LTX\) Claim count: 91 UAP has been false for over a year. There are a couple of suggestions a month over the past few months, but it appears to have been mostly idle before that. There are no active users on the discussion, although feministkilljoy is an editor. The top-claims are overpopulated. Most branches are unbalanced and unsourced. The claims need to be rephrased and made more concise. There are a number of duplicates scattered through the debate. Many of the claims/branches can be consolidated and further developed. There are a few flagged claims that should ideally be resolved immediately. I'd recommend changing the image on the discussion.). Not all countries have the resources and manpower to carry these out.
1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1. Pro: Nearly [a quarter](https://www.devex.com/news/exclusive-quarter-of-world-s-countries-haven-t-tracked-covid-19-mutations-99335) of the world's countries have not been able to track mutations due to limited capacity and finances.
1.1.1.2.2.1.1.2. Con: A [study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220325571) rated sequencing efforts of low- and middle-income countries as 'good'.
1.1.1.2.2.1.2. Pro: Genomic data is [integral](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971220325571) to our ability to detect mutations that may affect the pathogenicity and infectiousness of the virus and to identify conserved regions to target for vaccine development.
1.1.1.2.2.1.2.1. Pro: Some mutations in the Covid-19 virus can diminish the potency of [vaccines](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00031-0).
1.1.1.2.2.2. Pro: Early in the outbreak, [institutes](https://www.foxnews.com/health/ut-austin-announces-coronavirus-vaccine-breakthrough) and organizations hoped to have a vaccine for COVID-19 within [18 months](https://www.foxnews.com/health/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-in-18-months).
1.1.1.2.2.2.1. Con: 18 months from the onset of a pandemic is a significant amount of time, within which the virus would continue to spread and cause damage. This projection did not undermine the need to isolate those who had been exposed to the virus.
1.1.1.2.2.2.2. Pro: [Operation Warp Speed](https://www.defense.gov/Explore/Spotlight/Coronavirus/Operation-Warp-Speed/) was a partnership approved in [March 2020](https://www.defense.gov/Explore/Spotlight/Coronavirus/Operation-Warp-Speed/) to accelerate the vaccine development process.
1.1.1.2.2.2.3. Con: Even if [vaccines](https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4809) are developed quickly, not all countries will have access to them immediately.
1.1.1.2.2.2.3.1. Pro: Some experts have estimated that many poor countries will not see mass [immunisation](https://www.eiu.com/n/85-poor-countries-will-not-have-access-to-coronavirus-vaccines/) until 2022 or 2023.
1.1.1.2.2.2.4. Pro: In February 2020, researchers in Queensland claimed that they could develop a vaccine within [16 weeks \(about 4 months\)](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/02/12/804628081/timetable-for-a-vaccine-against-the-new-coronavirus-maybe-this-fall) using the [molecular clamp sequence information](https://www.sciencealert.com/australian-scientists-asked-to-make-coronavirus-vaccine-at-unprecedented-speed).
1.1.1.2.2.2.4.1. Con: Timelines concerning human trials are uncertain and could take longer than initially assessed.
1.1.1.2.2.2.4.1.1. Con: Moderna and Pfizer [started](https://www.biospace.com/article/a-timeline-of-covid-19-vaccine-development/) Phase 1/2 trials in July and August 2020 respectively, and were able to present promising results from human trials by November 2020.
1.1.1.2.2.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.2.2.2.4.
1.1.1.3. Con: It is possible to share epidemiologically relevant [information](https://www.who.int/medicines/ebola-treatment/background_briefing_on_data_results_sharing_during_phes.pdf) about the COVID-19 virus without allowing for the spread of the virus from one country to another.
1.1.1.3.1. Pro: Chinese scientists published [the genome structure](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jmv.25681) of COVID-19 on 21st January of 2019. This equipped experts to understand its epidemiological profile.
1.1.2. Con: The virus had already [spread](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/asia/china-wuhan-coronavirus-maps.html) beyond the borders of China by the time border closings would have taken effect, making it an ineffective policy.
1.1.2.1. Pro: By the time border closures were seriously being considered, new virus cases had accelerated elsewhere, and the epidemic was [slowing down](https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/mainland-china-reports-139-new-coronavirus-cases) in China. Thus, it would have been redundant to close other countries' borders to China, as the global transmission rate of the virus was clearly no longer linked solely to China.
1.1.2.1.1. Pro: By 5th March 2020, the number of new confirmed cases in Hubei, excluding Wuhan, remained in [single digits](https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/mainland-china-reports-139-new-coronavirus-cases) for seven consecutive days.
1.1.2.1.1.1. Con: The accuracy of these claims is [disputed](https://www.livemint.com/news/world/-coronavirus-cases-in-china-were-37-times-higher-than-reported-in-january-11592739425541.html) and case counts are widely believed to be underestimates.
1.1.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: China only began including asymptomatic cases in public data [in April 2020](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-idUSKBN21I155?taid=5e8328a353c773000108cd87&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter), several months after the outbreak began.
1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: One study [found](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-3012)(Asymptomatic persons seem to account for approximately 40% to 45% of SARS-CoV-2 infections, and they can transmit the virus to others for an extended period, perhaps longer than 14 days.) that asymptomatic cases can be as high as 40-45% of all cases, indicating that the outbreak was much larger than previously acknowledged.
1.1.2.1.1.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.1.1.3.3.
1.1.2.1.2. Con: China’s official statistics have been repeatedly revised through the course of the outbreak, casting [doubt](https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/mainland-china-reports-139-new-coronavirus-cases) over the assertion that they are seeing a deceleration of the outbreak.
1.1.2.1.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.1.1.3.3.
1.1.2.1.3. Con: Early on, there were [doubts](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/world/asia/china-coronavirus-cost.html) over whether China had truly contained the virus, and whether there would be a resurgence of cases once quarantine measures ceased.
1.1.2.1.4. Pro: China saw a [drastic drop in infections](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-china-economy-to-recover-demand-may-be-hurt-by-rising-global-cases.html) — from hundreds of cases per day in February 2020, to less than 50 each day in the second week of March.
1.1.2.1.5. Con: According to [one study](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/chinas-move-to-lockdown-wuhan-delayed-spread-of-coronavirus-outside-study/articleshow/74628483.cms), China's decision to lockdown Wuhan slowed down the spread of the virus to neighbouring cities.
1.1.2.1.5.1. Pro: Quarantining Wuhan [delayed the virus](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32144116/) spreading to the rest of China by 3-5 days, and markedly delayed its spread to the rest of the world.
1.1.2.1.6. Con: Closing all countries' borders to China would have not only prevented Chinese travelers from leaving China and entering other countries, but would have also prevented foreign travelers from entering China and potentially re-introducing \(more\) COVID-19.
1.1.2.1.6.1. Pro: In March 2020, more cases of COVID-19 [emerged](https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/china-reports-39-new-confirmed-cases-of-coronavirus-all-imported) in China from outside sources. Without closing the borders, China would have risked reinfecting its citizens.
1.1.2.1.6.1.1. Pro: In January 2021, due to the surge in COVID-19 cases around the world, China [closed](https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20210123-one-year-on-from-wuhan-lockdown-china-keeps-strict-border-controls-to-suppress-virus) its borders to foreign travelers to prevent a re-emergence of the virus.
1.1.2.1.6.1.2. Con: Chinese citizens could have been protected by mandating a quarantine for travelers for 14 days.
1.1.2.1.6.1.2.1. Pro: Countries could still keep their borders open, but enforce 14-day quarantine periods for new arrivals.
1.1.2.1.6.1.2.1.1. Con: Such a policy is likely to place higher demand on a country's already-limited resources, such as accommodation, food, and workers who are trained to carry out the necessary administrative processes.
1.1.2.1.6.1.2.1.1.1. Con: Arrivals can pay for quarantine facilities themselves, reducing the strain on incoming countries' resources.
1.1.2.1.6.1.2.1.1.1.1. Con: Not all individuals can afford to pay the steep costs associated with these quarantine facilities.
1.1.2.1.6.1.2.1.1.1.2. Pro: Arrivals to the UK must [pay](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55995645) £1,750 for quarantine hotels.
1.1.2.1.6.1.2.1.1.1.3. Pro: Arrivals to South Korea must [pay](https://overseas.mofa.go.kr/sg-en/brd/m_2444/view.do?seq=761451) KRW 2,100,000 \(USD 1,880\) to stay in a quarantine facility for two weeks.
1.1.2.1.6.1.2.1.2. Pro: A mandatory 14-day self-isolation policy was in place for new arrivals to countries such as [Australia](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-51894322) and [Israel](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51809818) in early March 2020.
1.1.2.1.6.1.2.1.3. Con: Early in the outbreak, experts were unsure whether the incubation period for the virus was [14 days](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/12/coronavirus-wuhan-china-outbreak/) or [24 days](https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/coronavirus-study-incubation-period/).
1.1.2.1.6.2. Con: Closing borders may strand travelers in countries that are currently overburdened with COVID-19 cases.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1. Pro: Closures can prevent a significant number of people from returning to their homes.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.1. Pro: Many governments were urging their citizens to return to their home countries at the onset of the pandemic. This would have been rendered impossible for many if borders to China had been closed.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.1.1. Pro: In March 2020, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau [encouraged Canadians abroad to book flights home](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadians-abroad-urged-to-come-home-while-they-still-can-amid/) to prevent them from being stranded in another country.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.1.2. Pro: In February 2020, the UK Foreign Office [urged all British citizens to leave China](https://www.cityam.com/foreign-secretary-dominic-raab-urges-all-brits-to-leave-china-due-to-coronavirus-outbreak/). The closing of borders would have prevented this.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.2. Pro: If someone is forced to stay in a foreign country longer than expected, they may not have access to a robust social network and thus find themselves isolated and lonely.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.2.1. Con: Individuals can use the internet to maintain contact with friends and family and mitigate loneliness.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.2.1.1. Con: Many studies have [found](https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2020/5/26/21256190/zoom-facetime-skype-coronavirus-loneliness?__c=1) that connecting via the internet is a poor substitute for in-person relationships.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.3. Con: Despite the negative consequences, preventing significant numbers of people from traveling from an infected area to an uninfected area is effective at curbing the pandemic.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.3.1. Pro: [Most models](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03605-6#ref-CR2) found that strict border controls early in the pandemic would have helped control the spread of COVID-19.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.3.2. Pro: With lower numbers of travelers, fewer people can be infected or able to spread the virus.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.3.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.1.5.1.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.3.3. Con: It is possible to limit the spread of infections without preventing people from returning home by instituting strict [quarantine](https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/3/e004537) measures for travelers.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.3.4. Con: [Testing](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-britain-airlines-idUSKBN2BH01B) on arrival can limit the spread of infections while also allowing people to travel home.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.3.4.1. Con: -> See 1.1.1.1.1.3.2.2.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.3.4.2. Con: Rapid test kits are [unreliable](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/25/uk-health-regulator-concerned-over-use-of-coronavirus-rapid-tests)(A recent Cochrane review – an analysis of 64 studies – found that rapid tests correctly identify on average 58% of people who are infected with the virus but have no symptoms, meaning more than one in three cases are missed.) at detecting COVID-19 cases.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.4. Pro: Several international [students](https://theconversation.com/youre-running-down-a-dead-end-stranded-students-feel-shame-and-pressure-to-give-up-study-155207) were stranded and unable to return home due to border closures. Closing borders to China would have increased this number.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.4.1. Pro: Border closures resulted in the long-term disruption of [education](https://theconversation.com/youre-running-down-a-dead-end-stranded-students-feel-shame-and-pressure-to-give-up-study-155207) for some students.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.4.1.1. Pro: Chinese students that were unable to enter Australia due to border closures were [embarrassed and ashamed](https://www.studyinternational.com/news/chinese-students-australia-2/) about the delay to their education and the financial pressure they were placing on their families.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.4.1.1.1. Pro: Female Chinese student in particular [faced pressure](https://www.studyinternational.com/news/chinese-students-australia-2/) to conform to traditional gender expectations due to the disruption to their education. This number would have been significantly higher had other countries instituted border closures.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.4.2. Pro: Not being able to go home while paid work is unavailable due to lockdowns can result in financial [precarity](https://theconversation.com/youre-running-down-a-dead-end-stranded-students-feel-shame-and-pressure-to-give-up-study-155207).
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.4.2.1. Con: The [majority of Chinese students](https://wenr.wes.org/2019/12/education-in-china-3#:~:text=While%20many%20Chinese%20families%2C%20particularly,pay%20for%20an%20international%20education.)(While many Chinese families, particularly those from the less developed, inland provinces, are dependent on scholarships or loans to send their children overseas, the vast majority of Chinese students are self-funded and able to pay for an international education.) are self-funded and do not rely on paid work to pay for their degrees.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.4.2.2. Pro: Many international students fund their living expenses by engaging in paid [work](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/aug/11/students-work-part-time-employability) alongside studies.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.5. Pro: People have a legal right to go [home](https://seafarersrights.org/right-to-be-repatriated/) when they want to.
1.1.2.1.6.2.1.5.1. Pro: In April 2021, a group of Australian citizens [petitioned](https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20210406-stranded-abroad-australians-lodge-un-petition-against-govt-for-right-to-return-home) the UN after being stranded overseas for more than a year.
1.1.2.1.6.2.2. Pro: Overburdened countries might resort to the provision of inadequate facilities to house these travelers, further risking their health.
1.1.2.1.6.2.2.1. Pro: Iran has set up quarantine camps at the Pakistan-Iran border \(Taftan\) for Pakistani travelers, using [unhygienic and inadequate](https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/newsfeed/2020/03/coronavirus-pakistan-taftan-quarantine-camp-200323110255493.html) facilities.
1.1.2.1.6.2.3. Con: Most countries have [offered](https://www.onlinevisa.com/news/indonesia-visa-extension-covid-19/) [visa](https://www.thaiembassy.com/travel-to-thailand/covid-19-guide-for-travelers-in-thailand) [extensions](https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus-health-worker-visa-extension) to travelers who can't return to their home countries.
1.1.2.1.7. Pro: After the initial outbreak, other areas of the world were more high-risk for COVID-19 than China.
1.1.2.1.7.1. Pro: By the start of May 2020, over [200](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/countries-where-coronavirus-has-spread/) countries had confirmed cases of COVID-19. Many of these nations had a [greater number](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries) of total cases and total deaths than China.
1.1.2.1.7.1.1. Pro: As of April 2021, [Italy](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/italy/) had nearly 4 million positive COVID-19 cases with over 118,000 confirmed deaths.
1.1.2.1.7.1.2. Pro: The [USA](https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/india/news/check-out-the-10-most-affected-countries-with-the-highest-number-of-coronavirus-cases/slidelist/76275918.cms#slideid=76276067) has by far the greatest number of total cases and total deaths worldwide.
1.1.2.2. Con: The virus already having spread beyond China's borders does not negate the point that closing China's borders would have helped contain the virus by reducing the likelihood of further spreading.
1.1.2.2.1. Pro: [Mexico](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8110163/Mexico-wants-close-border-Americans-stop-spread-coronavirus.html) closed its US land borders to prevent the virus from spreading into the country, as Mexico had a lower rate of infection than the US.
1.1.2.2.1.1. Con: Closing land borders was [ineffective](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/mexico/) at stopping the spread of COVID-19 in Mexico, which has one of the highest case counts in the world.
1.1.2.2.2. Con: After a certain threshold, it is too late to impose [travel](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/22/world/europe/travel-bans-coronavirus-variants.html) restrictions.
1.1.2.3. Pro: The [US travel bans](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/01/debate-early-travel-bans-china/) against Chinese citizens were not effective because they failed to prevent the entry of the virus from the other parts of the world.
1.1.2.3.1. Pro: [Genetic analyses](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6501/297) showed that the COVID-19 outbreak in New York was linked to the arrival of travelers from Europe and not from China.
1.1.3. Pro: The [numbers](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/03/how-many-americans-really-have-coronavirus/607348/) of cases reported were often flawed due to low testing rates in some countries. Without effective numbers, COVID-19 was not effectively tracked, which left a lot of unknown variables.
1.1.3.1. Con: Uncertainty about infection rates in some countries would justify a global [travel](https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-05-15/Why-travel-bans-didn-t-stop-the-coronavirus-Qw1rn3vOog/index.html) ban and not one just targeting China.
1.1.4. Con: It was impractical to close borders to all countries with COVID-19 cases as the virus spread quickly between countries.
1.1.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.
1.1.4.2. Con: A [number of countries](https://www.france24.com/en/20200314-us-house-passes-relief-package-as-coronavirus-epicentre-europe-locks-down) quickly imposed restrictions on movement between national borders. This suggests that closing borders was a realistic option.
1.1.5. Pro: The [first](https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019) case of COVID-19 was only reported on 31st December 2019. It was, naturally, something that humans knew very little about, and it took time to collect the data necessary to expand our knowledge on this virus.
1.1.5.1. Pro: Chinese authorities appeared to have [suppressed evidence](https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-li-wenliangs-death-a-moment-of-awakening-for-china/a-52377494) concerning the first COVID-19 outbreak, making it difficult for experts to analyse the virus.
1.1.5.2. Con: The US banned Chinese travellers in February 2020. Experts had sufficient knowledge of the virus by then.
1.1.5.2.1. Con: While experts may have had sufficient knowledge about the virus, they had insufficient knowledge about how to treat it, as evidenced by the [improvements](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/20/914374901/advances-in-icu-care-are-saving-more-patients-who-have-covid-19) in ICU care over time.
1.1.5.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.3.1.
1.1.5.3. Con: Travel bans against China were [instituted](https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/travel-restrictions-china-due-covid-19) after we had sufficient understanding of the COVID-19 virus.
1.1.6. Pro: Delaying the spread of COVID-19 infections by all possible means would have given healthcare providers a longer time to prepare for the outbreak.
1.1.6.1. Pro: Delaying the spread would have allowed healthcare providers with more time to acquire [ventilators](https://fortune.com/2020/03/17/coronavirus-ventilator-shortage/), which may have prevented a number of deaths.
1.1.6.2. Pro: Many hospitals ran low on [N95 masks](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/health/coronavirus-n95-face-masks.html) at the beginning of the outbreak. Delaying the spread could have provided hospitals with enough time to replenish this supply.
1.1.6.3. Pro: Research suggests that border closures, when coupled with with full lockdowns, prevent health systems from being [overwhelmed](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370\(20\)30208-X/fulltext#seccesectitle0018).
1.1.6.4. Con: A limited [travel ban](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/01/debate-early-travel-bans-china/) on Chinese visitors was insufficient in delaying the spread of COVID-19.
1.1.6.4.1. Con: The [ineffectiveness](https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/01/debate-early-travel-bans-china/) of this travel ban was because the ban was implemented late, and still allowed people from China to continue entering the United States.
1.1.6.4.1.1. Pro: In the US, despite the ban, [hundreds of thousands of travelers](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/coronavirus-china-travel-restrictions.html) continued to arrive in the United States from China.
1.1.7. Pro: Experts and health professionals were unsure of the exact timeline for when a COVID-19 vaccine would have been developed. Until they knew, it was best to prevent importing cases from other countries.
1.1.7.1. Pro: Vaccines need to be [tested](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-vaccine.html) in multiple stages of trials over an extended period of time to determine their safety and efficacy.
1.1.7.2. Pro: Vaccines need to be [produced](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01063-8) en masse, something that there are limited facilities to do and which could therefore reasonably be expected to take time.
1.1.7.3. Pro: The first COVID-19 vaccines weren't [rolled out](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55227325) until December 2020, nearly a year after the outbreak began.
1.1.7.4. Con: -> See 1.1.1.2.2.2.
1.1.7.5. Con: [Isolating](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-0931-9) those who are potentially infected is possible to do without instituting a travel ban.
1.2. Con: The economic effect of this action would have been wide-spread and disastrous.
1.2.1. Con: Public health issues should be prioritised over economic prosperity.
1.2.1.1. Pro: Historically, disease has been the [most common cause of death](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/causesofdeathover100years/2017-09-18).
1.2.1.2. Pro: It is better to suffer the consequences of reduced economic prosperity than for a significant number of people to die.
1.2.1.3. Con: Economic collapse could lead to even worse public health issues.
1.2.1.3.1. Pro: It is [estimated](https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/updated-estimates-impact-covid-19-global-poverty-looking-back-2020-and-outlook-2021)(Using the January 2021 forecasts from GEP, we now expect the COVID-19-induced new poor in 2020 to rise to between 119 and 124 million.) that COVID-19 will force between 119 and 124 million people into extreme poverty, where they will be more susceptible to many health problems.
1.2.1.3.2. Con: Any subsequent health issues can be dealt with in the future. Given the immediacy of COVID-19, it is important to mitigate its effects first.
1.2.1.3.3. Pro: Global economic collapse would likely impact the ability of a greater number of people to access public health services.
1.2.1.3.3.1. Pro: In a global economic crisis, [unemployment would likely increase](https://www.oecd.org/els/emp/impactoftheeconomiccrisisonemploymentandunemploymentintheoecdcountries.htm), thus decreasing the number of public health workers available to protect the public.
1.2.1.3.3.2. Pro: During an economic crisis, in countries where there is no free healthcare, individuals may be more reluctant to pay for their healthcare needs.
1.2.1.3.4. Pro: [Studies](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3167645/) have shown that economic crisis leads to death and worse disease control.
1.2.1.4. Pro: If workers become ill or die, production slows or stops, contributing to a decrease in economic prosperity. Containing the disease prevents this from getting worse.
1.2.1.5. Pro: The [economic](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00241/full) impacts of allowing COVID-19 infections to spread are worse than those caused by border closures.
1.2.2. Pro: In the post-pandemic world, the Chinese government may use its strong economic influence to punish countries that closed their borders.
1.2.2.1. Con: Because China's economy is [closely tied](https://oec.world/en/profile/country/chn) to the economies of other countries, punishing them would also hurt China.
1.2.2.2. Pro: China [can curtail outbound travel to countries](https://skift.com/2020/02/10/what-will-be-the-blowback-from-china-to-countries-that-banned-its-travelers-during-virus-outbreak/). This will be to the detriment of tourism industries in those countries.
1.2.2.2.1. Pro: Chinese tourists are the [world's biggest spenders](https://www.paymentssource.com/list/data-chinas-big-spenders).
1.2.2.2.1.1. Pro: According to the 2018 UN World Tourism Organization Highlight [report](https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/epdf/10.18111/9789284419876), Chinese tourists as a group outspent visitors from the U.S. and Germany combined in 2017. \(pg. 15-17\)
1.2.2.2.1.2. Pro: In [2017](https://www.paymentssource.com/list/data-chinas-big-spenders), Chinese tourists spent $257.7 billion on outbound tourism expenditures.
1.2.2.2.2. Pro: China has in the past [used its position as the second largest source of travelers to shape travel flows](https://skift.com/2020/02/10/what-will-be-the-blowback-from-china-to-countries-that-banned-its-travelers-during-virus-outbreak/). This suggests it would be willing to do the same again.
1.2.2.2.2.1. Pro: In [2017,](https://skift.com/2019/01/04/palau-campaign-stands-tough-on-environment-despite-hit-to-tourism/) the Chinese government banned tours to Palau as punishment for recognizing Taiwan.
1.2.2.2.2.2. Pro: In 2019, China [banned travel to Taiwan from 47 individual Chinese cities after relations between the two countries deteriorated.](https://time.com/5639832/china-bans-travel-taiwan-tourists/)
1.2.2.2.3. Con: After a long period of being unable to travel abroad, the pent up demand from Chinese citizens will be [enormous](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3132309/china-sees-domestic-tourism-boom-covid-19-fears-ease). A decision by the CCP to restrict travel will therefore be extremely unpopular.
1.2.2.3. Pro: China can discourage prospective students from attending foreign educational institutions.
1.2.2.3.1. Pro: Chinese students make up a large portion of international students at universities across the world. Thus, they also represent a large source of revenue for these institutions.
1.2.2.3.1.1. Pro: There are [over 120,000 Chinese international students](https://www.studyinternational.com/news/chinese-international-students/) studying in the UK.
1.2.2.3.1.2. Pro: Chinese students and their families are [estimated to have contributed $13 billion](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-48542913) to the US economy between 2017-2018.
1.2.2.3.1.3. Pro: There were more than [two million Chinese students](https://www.statista.com/statistics/430276/number-of-chinese-students-in-australia-by-education-sector/) in Australia in 2017, with approximately 1.4 million enrolled in the higher education sector alone.
1.2.2.3.1.3.1. Pro: Melbourne University makes 16% of its operating income from Chinese students, which is nearly [$410 million](https://www.afr.com/policy/health-and-education/chinese-students-have-already-stopped-coming-coming-to-australia-20190821-p52jhf) in revenue being directly contributed.
1.2.2.3.1.4. Con: The US has been trying to limit the number of Chinese students in recent years over [fears](https://fortune.com/2020/11/06/f1-student-visa-us-china/)(In September, the U.S. Department of State revoked 1,000 student visas awarded to Chinese nationals, saying the students and researchers in question had ties to the Chinese military. In 2019, the U.S. restricted visas for Chinese students who researched any technology that could have national security applications, and in 2018 the administration cut the visa length for Chinese graduate students in high-tech fields from five years to one.) of ties to the Chinese government or military.
1.2.2.3.2. Pro: The Chinese government can do this by issuing travel warnings or recommending one country over another.
1.2.2.3.3. Con: If China discourages students from attending foreign educational institutes, it is likely that the government will have to provide increased and better educational facilities itself.
1.2.2.3.3.1. Con: The Chinese government will be unable to provide a similar standard of higher education as that provided by top global universities.
1.2.2.3.3.1.1. Pro: Most of the students who want global placements want their [medium of education to be English](https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-students-reveal-why-they-study-in-australia-20190827-p52l3o.html), rather than Chinese.
1.2.2.3.3.1.2. Pro: The curriculum in global universities do not censor historical or political events, unlike China.
1.2.2.3.3.1.2.1. Pro: The biggest reason why Chinese students pursue studies abroad is their [distrust of Chinese media](https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-students-reveal-why-they-study-in-australia-20190827-p52l3o.html), the curtailment of which hampers many disciplinary studies such as political science and media studies.
1.2.2.3.3.1.2.2. Pro: Many students in China are [not even aware of atrocities in Chinese history](https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-students-reveal-why-they-study-in-australia-20190827-p52l3o.html), including the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward and the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
1.2.2.3.3.1.2.3. Pro: Effective education and training in history, sociology and other disciplines cannot occur if the Chinese government continues to censor historical and political incidents.
1.2.2.3.3.2. Con: It is likely that China will only discourage attendance in foreign educational institutes where countries have prevented Chinese people from entering the country. This will leave a significant number of countries that haven't adopted such policies.
1.2.2.3.4. Con: China is unlikely to discourage prospective Chinese students from attending elite foreign educational institutions.
1.2.2.3.4.1. Pro: If Chinese students stop attending elite international institutions, fewer students will have the technical skills to make positive contributions to the Chinese economy in the future, should they choose to return.
1.2.2.3.4.1.1. Pro: The rate of Chinese students returning to China after studying abroad [has been increasing](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1029571/china-growth-rate-of-students-returning-from-abroad/#:~:text=In%20the%20last%20few%20years,135%20thousand%20students%20in%202010.) in recent years.
1.2.2.4. Pro: Many countries are [highly dependent on China](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/11/26/top-10-china-dependent-countries/#46dae86b4932). It is likely that their economy will be affected in the instance where they are unable to export goods to China.
1.2.2.4.1. Pro: China accounts for roughly 10% of Indonesia's exports, [equivalent to 2% of its GDP](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/11/26/top-10-china-dependent-countries/#46dae86b4932).
1.2.2.4.2. Con: Countries can look toward alternative countries with [high industrial output.](https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/10-countries-with-the-highest-industrial-outputs-in-the-world.html)
1.2.2.4.3. Pro: In 2015, [34% of Australian iron ore exports](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/11/26/top-10-china-dependent-countries/#46dae86b4932) were directed to China. This contributed to 6% of Australia's GDP.
1.2.2.4.4. Pro: 25% of annual Korean exports go to China, roughly contributing [11% to Korean GDP](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/11/26/top-10-china-dependent-countries/#46dae86b4932).
1.2.2.4.5. Pro: Given that China is Russia's biggest trading partner, a slowdown in the movement of goods is a [serious risk to Russian trade.](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/02/19/coronavirus-hits-russian-exports-to-china-a69355)
1.2.2.4.5.1. Pro: Russian exports to China [dropped by almost a third](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/02/19/coronavirus-hits-russian-exports-to-china-a69355) in the first six weeks of 2020.
1.2.2.5. Con: The Chinese government may recognise that other governments had little option but to contain the public health crisis.
1.2.3. Con: Marked negative effects were predicted for, or already being felt by, both the Chinese and global economies regardless.
1.2.3.1. Pro: Deutsche Bank forecasted that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Chinese economic growth would be [1.5% lower](https://www.ft.com/content/e9fbbb78-4901-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441) in the first quarter of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.
1.2.3.2. Con: Even if there are already negative economic effects, this does not negate the point that closing borders would worsen existing economic problems.
1.2.3.3. Pro: In February 2020, a chief Chinese economist at Macquarie Capital in Hong Kong predicted that China may report negative economic growth this quarter for “the [first time](https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-economy/article/3053012/coronavirus-cost-chinas-economy-may-be-larger-beijing-hopes) since the Cultural Revolution”.
1.2.3.4. Pro: Chinese manufacturing and non-manufacturing [Purchasing Managers' Index](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/pmi.asp) \(PMI\) [plummeted](https://www.scmp.com/economy/global-economy/article/3053012/coronavirus-cost-chinas-economy-may-be-larger-beijing-hopes) from January to February 2020 as a direct result of the outbreak.
1.2.3.5. Con: The slowing down of the outbreak in China allowed China to restore its economy to full capacity.
1.2.3.5.1. Pro: Chinese economy was likely running at [60 - 70% of its capacity](https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/mainland-china-reports-139-new-coronavirus-cases) in early March, compared with about 50% in early February.
1.2.3.5.2. Con: Even though the Chinese economy is recovering, the pace of recovery in China is [not as fast as hoped for](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-china-economy-to-recover-demand-may-be-hurt-by-rising-global-cases.html) by analysts.
1.2.3.5.2.1. Pro: As China boosted production capacity close to pre-pandemic levels after the initial wave of cases, [global demand weakened](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-china-economy-to-recover-demand-may-be-hurt-by-rising-global-cases.html) due to a rise COVID-19 cases.
1.2.3.5.2.1.1. Pro: [Weakening consumer sentiment worldwide](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-china-economy-to-recover-demand-may-be-hurt-by-rising-global-cases.html) eliminated or reduced demand for goods from Asia, slowing the expected recovery for China.
1.2.3.5.2.2. Pro: It is proving to be difficult to [efficiently run highly complex supply chains](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-china-economy-to-recover-demand-may-be-hurt-by-rising-global-cases.html), which were hit by the lockdown in China, where many global firms have manufacturing facilities.
1.2.3.5.2.2.1. Pro: Disruptions to transnational supply chains would have negatively impacted global production.
1.2.3.5.2.2.1.1. Pro: Many countries around the world are [highly dependent](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/03/12/made-in-china) on Chinese manufactured goods.
1.2.3.5.2.2.1.1.1. Pro: China [produces](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/03/12/made-in-china) about 80% of the world’s air-conditioners, 70% of its mobile phones and 60% of its shoes.
1.2.3.5.2.2.1.1.2. Pro: Some major multinational companies, [such as Apple](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-apple/apples-data-shows-a-deepening-dependence-on-china-as-trumps-tariffs-loom-idUSKCN1VI29I), are dependent on China for production.
1.2.3.5.2.2.1.1.2.1. Pro: Among Apple's combined global supplier locations, 44.9% were in China in 2015, a proportion that rose to [47.6% by 2019](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-apple/apples-data-shows-a-deepening-dependence-on-china-as-trumps-tariffs-loom-idUSKCN1VI29I).
1.2.3.5.2.2.1.1.3. Pro: More than [200](https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/risk/cyber-strategic-risk/articles/covid-19-managing-supply-chain-risk-and-disruption.html) of the world's Fortune 500 firms have a presence in Wuhan, the origin of the COVID-19 outbreak.
1.2.3.5.2.2.1.2. Con: While there may be short term disruptions, there is some [evidence](https://www.ey.com/en_gl/supply-chain/how-covid-19-impacted-supply-chains-and-what-comes-next) that COVID-19 will reshape global supply chains for the better.
1.2.3.5.2.2.1.2.1. Pro: [Less reliance](https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/articles/the-localization-of-global-supply-chains-amid-the-pandemic/) on Chinese manufacturing will boost employment in other countries.
1.2.3.5.2.2.2. Pro: [Experienced](https://hbr.org/2004/10/the-triple-a-supply-chain) labor and technicians, which are required to boost supply chain performance, are not readily available.
1.2.3.5.2.2.3. Pro: Supply chains are cost-efficient when there is a constant [supply of inventory from multiple suppliers](https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/reducing-the-risk-of-supply-chain-disruptions/), an input that has been disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.2.3.5.2.3. Pro: Early in the pandemic, the supply of Chinese labor was below pre-pandemic levels.
1.2.3.5.2.3.1. Pro: Firms had difficulties in getting workers to return from their home provinces to work places due to “[regulatory issues such as health checks](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-china-economy-to-recover-demand-may-be-hurt-by-rising-global-cases.html)”.
1.2.3.5.2.3.1.1. Pro: Even if workers want to return to their work places, which may be in a different province or city, they would have been [subject to a quarantine period](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-china-economy-to-recover-demand-may-be-hurt-by-rising-global-cases.html) for safety.
1.2.3.5.2.4. Con: Even if the speed of recovery is slow, this does not negate the point that economic recovery is underway.
1.2.4. Pro: Border closures can spark a recession.
1.2.4.1. Con: Recessions can be prevented by large scale government spending programs that mitigate the worst economic effects of the pandemic.
1.2.4.1.1. Pro: The US passed [trillions](https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/03/11/covid-19-stimulus-how-much-do-coronavirus-relief-bills-cost/4602942001/) of dollars of stimulus that allowed the US economy to [recover quickly](https://www.bea.gov/news/2021/gross-domestic-product-4th-quarter-and-year-2020-advance-estimate) from the pandemic.
1.2.4.2. Pro: Border closures [led Nigeria's trade sector into a recession.](https://www.businessamlive.com/border-closure-leaves-nigerias-trade-sector-in-recession/)
1.2.5. Pro: The [travel industry](https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/29/business/travel-industry-coronavirus-economic-impact/index.html), an important part of the global economy, experienced a widespread negative impact, which would have worsened with border closures with China.
1.2.5.1. Pro: [Chinese tourists](https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/business/global-tourism-novel-coronavirus/index.html), who make up a large population of global travelers, were halted in February 2020. This hurt travel sales.
1.2.5.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.2.2.1.
1.2.5.1.2. Pro: China is the world's largest market for outbound travel, having skyrocketed from [4.5 million travelers in 2000 to 150 million in 2018](https://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284421138) \(p.12\).
1.2.6. Con: The Chinese government introduced measures to help to mitigate the negative economic impacts of border closures early on in the pandemic, and continued doing so beyond this.
1.2.6.1. Con: If production is stopped, then [monetary policy can do little](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/10/coronavirus-economic-effect-interest-rate-cuts-central-banks) to offset this.
1.2.6.2. Pro: In March 2020, China's central bank [cut the cash banks must hold as reserves](https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-china-economy-rrr-cut/china-pumps-79-billion-into-economy-with-bank-cash-reserve-cut-idUKKBN2101O3), effectively pumping $79 billion into the economy.
1.2.6.3. Pro: In February 2020, the government introduced [tax concessions](https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-new-tax-incentives-help-businesses-overcome-coronavirus-stress/), deductions, and subsidies for businesses hit hard by border closures, such as those in the tourism industry.
1.2.7. Pro: Preventing the flow of goods from the [largest manufacturing country](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/102214/why-china-worlds-factory.asp) in the world would likely have had a negative impact on the global economy.
1.2.7.1. Pro: If goods aren't being produced in sufficient quantities, many consumers will not have goods to purchase.
1.2.7.2. Pro: Pricing on existing imported goods may have increased.
1.2.7.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.5.2.2.1.
1.2.7.4. Con: Blocking borders could still have allowed for the continued movement of goods, but not people.
1.2.8. Pro: Closing borders could have further reduced investor confidence in the global stock market.
1.2.8.1. Con: Despite closed borders in many countries, the US stock market [boomed](https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/12/31/the-stock-market-was-amazing-in-2020-let-us-count/?source=awin&awc=12195_1620611635_10d7aba9b9bc26d46bbc3516668e03a7&utm_source=aw&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=101248) in 2020.
1.2.8.2. Pro: After the imposition of travel restrictions by many countries, global stock markets experienced the [largest fall since the 2008 financial crisis.](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/09/global-stock-markets-post-biggest-falls-since-2008-financial-crisis)
1.2.9. Con: The economics of border closures would not have been disastrous, but rather beneficial.
1.2.9.1. Pro: For countries and workers, too many companies [outsource to China](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2019/09/03/why-american-companies-choose-china-over-everyone-else/#16a8bf6471de) and stopping their shipments would have increased the need for local workers and boost the GDP there.
1.2.9.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.5.2.2.1.2.1.
1.2.9.2. Pro: The economy will shift to the virtual environment, so in the long-term it is more beneficial, as it will [postpone climate change](https://news.mit.edu/2021/how-will-covid-19-ultimately-impact-climate-change-0129) and allow for the economy to last longer.
1.2.9.2.1. Pro: Thanks to online meetings, business travel will likely [not rebound](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-02/not-so-frequent-flyers-business-travel-misses-out-on-recovery) to its pre-pandemic levels for years, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide released from airplanes.
1.2.9.2.2. Pro: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that global warming will likely [accelerate the emergence of new viruses](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/a-green-reboot-after-the-pandemic/). Thus, if the economy becomes more virtual now, this will slow climate change, reducing the likelihood and magnitude of further pandemics and in turn preventing their disastrous economic effects.
1.3. Con: COVID-19 is not too dangerous, therefore blocking all borders to China was not warranted.
1.3.1. Con: COVID-19 [is mutating](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/a-new-strain-of-coronavirus-what-you-should-know) as it spreads from person-to-person. Mutations can prolong and worsen the pandemic, especially in cases where they are [more infectious.](https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-dangerous-are-new-covid-19-strains)
1.3.1.1. Pro: The new COVID-19 strains [disrupted lives](https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210107/new-covid-super-strains-could-disrupt-life-again) in early 2021.
1.3.1.2. Con: COVID-19 has mutated into various strains. However, these are not much worse than the original strain.
1.3.1.2.1. Pro: The South African strain is [not much more](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55534727) dangerous than the original COVID-19 strain.
1.3.1.2.2. Pro: While the UK strain is more transmissible, [studies have found](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/uk-covid-variant-transmissible-deadly-studies/story?id=76887767) that it is not more dangerous than the original strain.
1.3.1.2.3. Con: The new strains [increase the possibility](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-coronavirus-variants-could-cause-more-reinfections-require-updated-vaccines) of individuals being reinfected by COVID-19.
1.3.1.2.4. Con: Some of these mutations could cause the virus to [spread](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/a-new-strain-of-coronavirus-what-you-should-know) more effectively between humans, resulting in more infections and deaths.
1.3.2. Pro: COVID-19 has a very high [rate of recovery](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/#recovered), with 98% of those infected recovering from the disease.
1.3.2.1. Pro: It takes on average [two weeks](https://physicianoneurgentcare.com/blog/what-is-the-average-recovery-time-for-covid-19/) to recover from COVID-19.
1.3.2.1.1. Con: This is still an extensive recovery period. By comparison, most influenza patients recover [within 5-7 days](https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/how-long-does-the-flu-last).
1.3.2.1.2. Con: Some people suffer from long COVID, which can take [five to twelve months](https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/long-covid#Heading2) to recover from.
1.3.2.2. Con: It is possible for individuals to [be reinfected](https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n99) by COVID-19.
1.3.2.2.1. Pro: By March 2020, China [documented](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/27/822407626/mystery-in-wuhan-recovered-coronavirus-patients-test-negative-then-positive) several cases of COVID-19 reinfections.
1.3.2.2.1.1. Pro: At least [5 to 10%](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/27/822407626/mystery-in-wuhan-recovered-coronavirus-patients-test-negative-then-positive) of those recovered were testing positive in March 2020, although they were asymptomatic. If allowed to move freely beyond China's borders, these individuals could have unknowingly infected others.
1.3.2.2.2. Con: Reinfection from COVID-19 is [very rare.](https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/07/covid-19-reinfections-still-seem-rare/)
1.3.2.2.2.1. Pro: One study [found](https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/l-tls031821.php) that only 0.65% of people tested positive for COVID-19 twice.
1.3.2.2.2.2. Con: -> See 1.3.1.2.3.
1.3.2.2.3. Pro: Older individuals are at a [higher risk](https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/91682) of reinfection by COVID-19.
1.3.2.3. Con: Given that COVID-19 [spreads easily](https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-how-is-it-transmitted), even a low death rate can mean that deaths are high in terms of absolute numbers.
1.3.2.3.1. Pro: COVID-19 has a higher R value \(the number of people each infected person infects\) than many other pandemics \([Table 5](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7426550/)\).
1.3.2.3.2. Pro: As of May 2021, well over [three million](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries) people have died from COVID-19.
1.3.3. Pro: [Elderly people](https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/03/who-is-getting-sick-and-how-sick-a-breakdown-of-coronavirus-risk-by-demographic-factors/) are the only group at serious risk of fatality caused by COVID-19.
1.3.3.1. Con: Elderly people have a case fatality rate of [56.82%](https://idpjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40249-020-00785-1) for men and 41.10% for women. This is a significant enough rate to merit considering COVID-19 dangerous, even if they are the only group at risk.
1.3.3.1.1. Pro: Elderly people are not expendable. If they are at risk, then society has an obligation to help them.
1.3.3.2. Con: While the mortality rate is greatest for the elderly, the odds of an infection becoming fatal for middle-aged individuals is [1:100](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/01/210121131806.htm). This is 19 to 100 times more than the risk of dying from an automobile accident.
1.3.3.2.1. Pro: In the US, [22.4%](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/) of the total number of deaths caused by COVID-19 are of individuals between the ages of 45-64.
1.3.4. Con: Even if COVID-19 itself was not inherently dangerous, the global outbreak does pose a serious danger when health services worldwide are overwhelmed, as was the case even early on in the pandemic.
1.3.4.1. Pro: In March 2020, hospitals across Italy were put under [unmanageable strain](https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/03/12/nation/italian-hospitals-overwhelmed-by-deaths-amid-coronavirus-outbreak/) as a result of COVID-19 infections.
1.3.4.1.1. Pro: Giorgio Gori, the Mayor of Bergamo in northern Italy, stated that his town had no more beds left in their ICU, with patients who could not be treated being "[left to die](https://www.ft.com/content/34f25036-62f4-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6a68)”.
1.3.4.2. Con: Countries quickly adopted strategies to reduce the negative impact of the pandemic on their health services and population.
1.3.4.2.1. Pro: In March 2020, the UK formulated an extensive [4-part plan](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-action-plan/coronavirus-action-plan-a-guide-to-what-you-can-expect-across-the-uk#our-response-to-the-current-coronavirus-outbreak) detailing what it had done and what it planned to do in order to contain or delay the outbreak, thus alleviating the strain on the National Health Service \(NHS\).
1.3.4.2.1.1. Con: The initiative included [recruiting retired clinicians](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/10/government-fails-to-detail-how-retired-doctors-plan-will-work-for-coronavirus) to help the NHS tackle COVID-19; however, a Guardian survey showed that most of the 120 former NHS employees asked were [resistant](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/04/majority-of-retired-nhs-staff-dont-want-to-return-to-tackle-covid-19-crisis) to this idea.
1.3.4.2.2. Pro: Many countries implemented social distancing or self-isolation guidelines in a bid to ['flatten the curve'](https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-flatten-the-curve.html), slowing the virus' spread so that fewer people need to access health services at any given time.
1.3.4.2.2.1. Pro: In March 2020, the Italian government [banned](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/22/italian-pm-warns-of-worst-crisis-since-ww2-as-coronavirus-deaths-leap-by-almost-800) any movement inside the country and closed all non-essential businesses until further notice.
1.3.4.2.2.2. Pro: Many countries closed their schools in response to the pandemic.
1.3.4.2.2.2.1. Pro: [Denmark](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51845817) closed all its schools and universities on Friday 13th March 2020.
1.3.4.2.2.2.2. Pro: In February 2020, Japan [closed](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/27/world/asia/japan-schools-coronavirus.html) its schools for at least a month.
1.3.4.2.2.3. Pro: Many countries introduced travel restrictions, including visa suspensions, to cope with the pandemic.
1.3.4.2.2.3.1. Pro: In March 2020, US President Donald Trump announced [travel restrictions](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51846923) on many European countries to combat the spread of COVID-19.
1.3.4.2.2.3.1.1. Con: Many have predicted that this strategy will prove ineffective, with a [public health expert](https://twitter.com/LawrenceGostin/status/1237917490887434240) at Georgetown University noting that "germs don't respect borders".
1.3.4.2.2.3.2. Pro: In March 2020, [India](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-51847620) announced that almost all visas would be suspended for a month in order to slow the spread of the virus.
1.3.4.2.2.3.3. Pro: [Hong Kong](https://www.garda.com/crisis24/news-alerts/325711/hong-kong-government-closes-borders-to-all-non-residents-from-march-25-update-16), [Taiwan](https://fortune.com/2020/10/31/taiwan-best-covid-response/), and [Singapore](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/covid-19-one-year-since-the-border-closure-between-singapore-and-14445474) were initially able to [contain outbreaks](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/opinion/coronavirus-best-response.html) by closing their borders.
1.3.4.2.2.3.3.1. Con: That border closures led to the containment of [outbreaks](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03605-6) in some countries does not entail that they are always successful in doing so.
1.3.4.2.2.3.3.1.1. Pro: Hong Kong and Taiwan have certain variables that not all countries have - for instance, the [established cultural norm](https://qz.com/299003/a-quick-history-of-why-asians-wear-surgical-masks-in-public/) of wearing masks when ill - so it would be unwise to say that closing borders alone was sufficient to stabilise their outbreaks.
1.3.4.2.2.3.3.2. Pro: Taiwan [closed its borders](https://www.roc-taiwan.org/sa_en/post/1941.html) to travelers from China on January 24, 2020, a move that played a [significant role](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/24/how-taiwan-triumphed-over-covid-as-uk-faltered) in Taiwan's ability to control the virus.
1.3.4.2.2.4. Con: Suppression, which aims to reverse epidemic growth rather than slow it, would reduce the negative impact to a far greater extent than simply flattening the curve of COVID-19 cases.
1.3.4.2.2.4.1. Pro: [Research](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf) by the Imperial College COVID-19 Response Team suggests that a mitigated, slower epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems being repeatedly overwhelmed.
1.3.4.2.2.4.2. Con: This type of intensive intervention is not as realistic or feasible as the mitigating strategy of flattening the curve.
1.3.4.2.2.4.2.1. Pro: Suppression via social distancing of entire populations would need to be maintained until a vaccine became available and was administered to the majority of the public.
1.3.4.2.2.4.2.2. Con: The number of infections in New York City, one of the hardest hit by COVID-19, [started](https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-04-06/new-york-governor-says-coronavirus-crisis-may-have-hit-plateau) to plateau in May 2020 due to social distancing.
1.3.4.2.2.5. Pro: It is estimated that optimal mitigation policies - namely social distancing and self-isolation of particularly at-risk groups - might [reduce peak healthcare demand by two thirds](https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf).
1.3.4.2.2.5.1. Con: -> See 1.3.4.2.2.4.1.
1.3.4.3. Pro: In May 2020, the NHS in the UK [struggled to keep up](https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/voices/coronavirus-nhs-nightingale-standby-matt-hancock-operations-austerity-a9499151.html) with the number of COVID-19 infections.
1.3.4.3.1. Pro: A survey conducted in early March 2020 found an overwhelming [majority](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/02/coronavirus-just-eight-out-of-1600-doctors-in-poll-say-nhs-is-ready) of UK doctors did not think the NHS was well-prepared to deal with a major outbreak of COVID-19.
1.3.4.3.2. Pro: A UK ICU doctor opined that increased ICU demands due to the COVID-19 outbreak would equate to each UK ICU bed being needed for around [100 more](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/03/icu-doctor-nhs-coronavirus-pandemic-hospitals) patients than on average during the pandemic period.
1.3.4.3.3. Pro: The UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson [urged manufacturers to help produce ventilators](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51896168), predicting that the NHS was likely to face a shortage of these devices as the number of COVID-19 infections increased.
1.3.4.4. Pro: In some countries, many overburdened health institutions were forced to transform facilities to treat COVID-19 patients.
1.3.4.4.1. Pro: In Wuhan, China, many hospitals were converted into facilities for treating [only](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/03/world/asia/china-coronavirus-cancer.html) COVID-19 patients in March 2020; this was at the expense of countless other ill citizens who required timely care.
1.3.4.4.2. Pro: In [Milan, Italy](https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/817974987/every-single-individual-must-stay-home-italy-s-coronavirus-deaths-pass-china-s), in March 2020, hospitals set up inflatable tents outdoors for triage and old fairgrounds were turned into emergency COVID-19 hospitals.
1.3.5. Con: The death rate for the flu is 0.05% in the USA. The death rate for COVID-19 appears to be about [2%](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-the-new-coronavirus-compare-with-the-flu/).
1.3.5.1. Con: [Officials](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-the-new-coronavirus-compare-with-the-flu/) note that in the beginning of an outbreak, the initial cases that are identified “skew to the severe,” which can make the mortality rate seem higher than it is; the death rate is likely to drop as milder cases are identified.
1.3.5.1.1. Con: A WHO expert who led an international mission to China to learn about the virus and the country’s response suggested that this was [not](https://globalbiodefense.com/headlines/dr-bruce-aylward-reports-on-chinas-novel-coronavirus-response/) the case with COVID-19, noting that the evidence did not suggest that the mortality rate was skewed.
1.3.6. Con: -> See 1.1.1.1.1.
1.3.7. Pro: If adequate precautions are taken, the spread and effect of COVID-19 can be mitigated without border closures.
1.3.7.1. Pro: Distributing masks in all countries that have cases and recommending that the public wear them should significantly reduce its spread.
1.3.7.1.1. Pro: Masks reduce [the extent to which](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7179801/) an infected person spreads the virus.
1.3.7.1.1.1. Pro: Wearing face masks [could be useful](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/02/coronavirus-do-face-masks-work-and-how-to-stop-it-from-spreading.html) in limiting the transmission of COVID-19 to an unaffected person, as it can prevent an infected person from sneezing or coughing near or on someone else.
1.3.7.1.1.2. Pro: A [study](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32355904/) found that face masks can greatly reduce transmission of COVID-19, potentially reducing 17-45% of the projected deaths over two months in New York.
1.3.7.1.2. Pro: The US CDC [recommends](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/world/coronavirus-news.html#link-5385b29f) wearing masks.
1.3.7.1.2.1. Pro: Wearing a mask or a cloth facial covering [may prevent](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html) asymptomatic or symptomatic persons from infecting others when out in public.
1.3.7.1.3. Con: Many people are [reluctant](https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/8/7/21357400/anti-mask-protest-rallies-donald-trump-covid-19?__c=1) to wear masks and [doubt](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53477121) their efficacy, even if wearing masks is recommended to them.
1.3.7.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.1.6.1.2.1.
1.3.7.3. Con: Border closures are a relatively simple policy that doesn't require public compliance for them to be effective.
1.3.7.3.1. Pro: New Zealand's [early and strict border controls](https://www.nzdoctor.co.nz/timeline-coronavirus) meant that its citizens were able to live relatively [normal lives](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/24/world/new-zealand-concert-covid.html) throughout the pandemic.
1.4. Con: The collective societal and psychological impacts of blocking borders can be grave.
1.4.1. Pro: Quarantine requirements that accompany border restrictions lead to harmful psychological consequences.
1.4.1.1. Pro: Studies on previous pandemics and outbreaks have revealed that such situations adversely affect the mental health of the people affected.
1.4.1.1.1. Pro: During the 2003-4 SARS outbreak in Toronto, researchers [surveyed](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-02-27/coronavirus-quarantine-raises-mental-health-concerns-for-china) 129 individuals who were quarantined, shortly after their isolation ended. Post-traumatic stress was identified in 28.9% of patients, and depression in 31.9%.
1.4.1.1.2. Pro: A study undertaken during the 2015 outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome Coronavirus \(MERS-CoV\) in South Korea showed that the acute treatment of MERS-CoV infections in quarantine had a [significant impact](https://www.psychiatryinvestigation.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.30773/pi.2017.10.25.1) on the patients’ mental health.
1.4.1.2. Pro: The COVID-19 pandemic has already lead to harmful psychological consequences for many people.
1.4.1.2.1. Pro: A survey found that out of 18,000 Chinese citizens surveyed, [42.6%](https://www.businessinsider.com/mental-health-issues-anxiety-depression-skyrocket-china-lockdowns-curb-coronavirus-2020-2) reported having anxiety related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.4.1.2.2. Pro: 21.5% of Chinese citizens surveyed early in the COVID-19 pandemic [showed](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-mental/chinese-public-dial-in-for-support-as-coronavirus-takes-mental-toll-idUSKBN2070H2) obvious signs of post-traumatic stress.
1.4.1.2.2.1. Con: Symptoms of PTSD [often mirror that of other mental health problems.](https://www.worldcare.com/2017/06/27/five-mental-health-disorders-often-misdiagnosed/)
1.4.1.3. Pro: A 2019 study on the mental health implications of quarantine and isolation noted that [all forms](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333120447_Mental_Health_of_Quarantine_and_Isolation) of separation and isolation tend to impose an emotional toll on those affected by isolation, and complicate the management of preexisting mental health issues.
1.4.1.3.1. Pro: [Around one in four](https://www.who.int/whr/2001/media_centre/press_release/en/) people will experience mental health issues at some point in their life. Thus, quarantine is likely to exacerbate mental health problems for a significant number of people.
1.4.2. Pro: Sudden closure of borders can provoke [moral panic](https://www.thoughtco.com/moral-panic-3026420), which can have serious consequences.
1.4.2.1. Pro: Very early on in the pandemic, the virus outbreak lead to a spike in anti-Chinese sentiment and racism against Asians in general around the world. If borders were closed to China and Chinese nationals, this would have legitimised and fueled such xenophobia.
1.4.2.1.1. Pro: In January 2020, a sharp [increase](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/31/spate-of-anti-chinese-incidents-in-italy-amid-coronavirus-panic) in [incidents](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/09/chinese-in-uk-report-shocking-levels-of-racism-after-coronavirus-outbreak) of [racist](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/04/australian-doctors-warn-of-rise-in-racist-abuse-over-coronavirus) [hostility](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/28/canada-chinese-community-battles-racist-backlash-amid-coronavirus-outbreak) towards Asian-presenting people was reported in many Western countries.
1.4.2.1.1.1. Pro: In February 2020, many French-Asians on social media [complained of a backlash against them](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51294305) in response to the COVID-19 outbreak.
1.4.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: The hashtag [JeNeSuisPasUnVirus](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51294305), translating to 'I am not a virus', was used by many.
1.4.2.1.1.2. Pro: [Canada](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/28/canada-chinese-community-battles-racist-backlash-amid-coronavirus-outbreak)'s Chinese community was increasingly facing racist abuse in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.4.2.1.1.2.1. Pro: The racism that was being faced by the Chinese community in Canada was similar to the wave of xenophobia they experienced during the [2003 SARS outbreak](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/28/canada-chinese-community-battles-racist-backlash-amid-coronavirus-outbreak).
1.4.2.1.1.2.2. Pro: A popular Toronto blog that reviewed a new Chinese restaurant received [a torrent of racist comments](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/28/canada-chinese-community-battles-racist-backlash-amid-coronavirus-outbreak).
1.4.2.1.1.2.3. Pro: In January 2020, nearly [9,000 parents](https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/stop-2019nCoV-spread-in-york-region-school) in the York school district signed a petition demanding students who had traveled to China in the last 17 days be prevented from attending school.
1.4.2.1.1.3. Pro: In February 2020 in [Australia](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/04/australian-doctors-warn-of-rise-in-racist-abuse-over-coronavirus), there was a rise in reports of abuse faced by Asian-Australians.
1.4.2.1.1.3.1. Pro: In February 2020 in public spaces, Asian-Australians were being yelled at and told to stand in the corner because they were “[spreading viruses](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/04/australian-doctors-warn-of-rise-in-racist-abuse-over-coronavirus)”.
1.4.2.1.1.3.2. Pro: In February 2020, hospitals in Australia were reporting an increase in instances of racism [within emergency departments](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/04/australian-doctors-warn-of-rise-in-racist-abuse-over-coronavirus), with patients and staff of Chinese appearance being subjected to racist abuse.
1.4.2.1.1.3.3. Pro: There was an increase of false news being spread against the Chinese community in the same time period.
1.4.2.1.1.3.3.1. Pro: In February 2020 in Queensland, an image made to look like a Queensland Health warning was circulated, telling residents to avoid [all populated areas where the ratio of Chinese national to non-Chinese Australians was 1 to 3](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/04/australian-doctors-warn-of-rise-in-racist-abuse-over-coronavirus).
1.4.2.1.1.3.3.2. Pro: In January 2020 in New South Wales, a viral post circulated claiming that various Asian foods, some of which did not exist, [carried COVID-19](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/31/bat-soup-dodgy-cures-and-diseasology-the-spread-of-coronavirus-bunkum).
1.4.2.1.1.4. Con: Racism is not a product of the COVID-19 outbreak. Many minorities reported experiencing racism [prior to the outbreak.](https://www.itv.com/news/2020-02-17/more-than-half-of-black-asian-and-minority-ethnic-bame-mps-asked-by-itv-news-have-experienced-racism-in-parliament/)
1.4.2.1.1.5. Pro: In February 2020, Asian-presenting people in the UK reported [shocking levels of racist incidents](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/09/chinese-in-uk-report-shocking-levels-of-racism-after-coronavirus-outbreak) in the aftermath of COVID-19 outbreak.
1.4.2.1.1.5.1. Pro: In [Leicestershire](https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/two-students-international-college-chinese-3811043), two students – mistakenly thought to be Chinese – were pelted with eggs on the street in Market Harborough.
1.4.2.1.1.5.2. Pro: The Manchester Chinese Centre received [numerous complaints](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/keep-away-poisoned-manchesters-chinese-17701894) of racist incidents targeting Asian-presenting children in schools across the region.
1.4.2.1.1.5.2.1. Pro: Manchester Chinese Centre ran a supplementary school at the weekend for more than 450 pupils to gain qualifications in Mandarin and other subjects. But due to pressure from parents, they had to [shut the school](https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/keep-away-poisoned-manchesters-chinese-17701894) over fears about COVID-19.
1.4.2.1.2. Pro: By March 2020, prominent figures had predicted that the moves by President Trump to block US borders to many foreign countries, including China, would [dangerously fuel](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/11/donald-trump-us-coronavirus-address) xenophobic and nationalistic sentiment among US citizens.
1.4.2.1.3. Con: The risk of some people being xenophobic is not a sufficient reason to compromise on preventing the contraction and spreading of a disease.
1.4.2.1.3.1. Pro: Avoiding a health pandemic is more important for overall public safety than the potential stigmatization of certain individuals.
1.4.3. Pro: The negative [psychological](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.614770/full) effects of restricted movement due to pandemics have already been documented, in both the COVID-19 oubreak in China and past outbreaks.
1.4.3.1. Con: Negative psychological impacts should be tolerated to prevent the spread of disease and an increase in the number of deaths.
1.4.3.2. Con: The physical impact of COVID-19 is more harmful than the psychological ones at this time, thus diminishing this impact's priority.
1.4.3.2.1. Pro: COVID-19 [has caused](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/) millions of deaths. Thus, psychological impacts are secondary.
1.4.3.3. Pro: [Uncertainty](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.614770/full) about travel plans have a negative psychological impact.
1.4.4. Con: China is well-equipped to deal with the mental health repercussions of border restrictions.
1.4.4.1. Pro: The government supported the establishment and operation of [emergency mental-health hotlines](http://english.cctv.com/2020/02/13/ARTIU8M921Vo3wBER1eILDwi200213.shtml?spm=C69523.P89571092934.EHGJVBEtyuX6.3) across the country.
1.4.4.1.1. Pro: By March 2020, over [600](https://www.itv.com/news/2020-03-17/china-coronavirus-covid-19-mental-health/) mental health hotlines had been opened to support the public, as well as health care workers, affected by COVID-19.
1.4.4.2. Con: There is a severe [shortage](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315972/) of specialized mental health professionals in China.
1.4.4.2.1. Pro: In [2017](https://www.alliedacademies.org/articles/where-would-we-find-enough-psychiatrists-to-serve-in-the-new-buildings-inchina-8891.html#4), there were less than 1.5 registered psychiatrists per 100,000 people in China, which is far below the global average.
1.4.4.2.2. Pro: As of [2015](https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/china-is-prepared-to-fight-against-emerging-mental-health-disorders-1522-4821-1000244.php?aid=59378), the number of psychiatric beds available in China is about 1.71 per 100,000, which is below the global average of 4.36 per 100,000 individuals.
1.4.4.3. Con: The pandemic and its accompanying measures caused significant damage to the [mental health](http://COVID-19 pandemic has created an immense adverse impact on the physical and mental health of the population in Chin) of people in China very early on.
1.4.4.3.1. Pro: During March 2020, travel restrictions in [Wuhan](https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-03-11/lockdown-wuhan-takes-toll-people-s-mental-health) lead to an increase in anxiety and depression among people.
1.4.4.4. Pro: China has handled the mental health impacts of restricted movement during pandemic very well.
1.4.4.4.1. Pro: The pandemic [forced a shift](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/21/world/asia/china-covid-mental-health.html) in society's attitude towards mental health problems, with many openly acknowledging and seeking help.
1.4.4.4.2. Pro: [Daily press conferences](https://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12992-020-00634-8) were held by China's central health authority to provide people with accurate information in order to allay unwarranted anxiety and panic.
1.4.4.4.3. Pro: China's National Health Commission released [guidelines](http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/zhengcwj/202001/6adc08b966594253b2b791be5c3b9467.shtml) in January 2020 for psychological care during the epidemic and relocated [mental health professionals](https://www.yicaiglobal.com/news/50-shanghai-mental-health-experts-deploy-to-aid-wuhan) to Wuhan.
1.4.4.4.3.1. Pro: The Joint Prevention and Control Mechanism of the State Council issued the [emergency deployment](http://sc.china-embassy.org/eng/zxhd/t1787248.htm)(e said the contact group should guide and support follow-up work in Wuhan and other parts of Hubei and advise on the rehabilitation and psychological counseling of patients in recovery, to ensure that the gains would be consolidated.) of a national psychological rescue team to Wuhan.
1.4.4.4.4. Con: The Chinese government's ability to deal with mental health repurcussions of travel restrictions does not help impacted people outside of China.
1.4.5. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.1.6.2.1.
1.4.6. Con: The psychological impacts of the pandemic are far worse and more wide-ranging than that of [travel restrictions](https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/the-implications-of-covid-19-for-mental-health-and-substance-use/).
1.5. Pro: Closing borders with China would have reduced the spread of COVID-19.
1.5.1. Con: Even if official flights to and from China were banned, [people would have found a way to get from one point to another](https://globalnews.ca/news/6546569/china-coronavirus-flights-canada/).
1.5.1.1. Pro: Closing borders to highly infectious pathogens will never prevent transmission entirely because all frontiers are somewhat [porous](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/asia/china-wuhan-coronavirus-maps.html).
1.5.1.1.1. Con: Reducing transmission is always more beneficial than keeping all pathways open.
1.5.1.1.2. Pro: Thousands of North Korean [defectors](https://www.unikorea.go.kr/eng_unikorea/relations/statistics/defectors/) move through China each year via its porous land border on their way to South Korea.
1.5.1.1.2.1. Con: The number of defectors was at its [lowest point](https://www.nknews.org/2021/01/north-korean-defectors-arriving-in-the-south-drop-by-78-in-2020-a-record-low/) in 2020, indicating that neighboring countries such as North Korea can maintain effective border control with China.
1.5.1.1.3. Pro: China has the [longest land border](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_land_borders) in the world and fourteen neighboring countries. It is unlikely that all of those border crossings would have remained closed.
1.5.1.2. Con: Even if some people found a way of circumventing the border closures, the number of people traveling would have gone down significantly.
1.5.1.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.1.6.2.1.3.2.
1.5.1.2.2. Con: It only takes one infected person crossing the border to ignite an outbreak in another country.
1.5.2. Con: -> See 1.1.2.
1.5.3. Pro: -> See 1.3.4.2.2.3.3.
1.5.4. Pro: The logical extension of widely recommended '[social distancing](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2237664-coronavirus-what-is-social-distancing-and-how-do-you-do-it/)' policies would have been closing borders and banning all travel across the world.
1.5.4.1. Pro: One of the most effective ways to prevent the spread of a virus is to isolate cases within the territories they are prevalent in. Blocking exit and entry to China would have implemented this on an international scale.
1.5.4.1.1. Con: -> See 1.1.2.1.6.1.2.1.
1.5.4.1.2. Pro: It is logical to block borders to countries that harbour the virus, according to [transmission theory](https://upload.cc/i1/2020/03/23/hrbYWK.png?fbclid=IwAR2VLeJ1wv5uNlSKg5fCIUtkjmNn7bLkuZR79xDxk6F-06uA5HQfg_KXWyU) \([translation](https://imgur.com/a/pbBGwpm)\). China, being the origin of the virus, would have been a reasonable first choice to block.
1.5.4.2. Pro: Blocking borders is in accordance with wider recommendations to [stop large gatherings](https://globalnews.ca/news/6668957/bc-coronavirus-update-march-12/) as it will prevent large numbers coming together in airports.
1.5.4.2.1. Con: Social distancing measures could be put in place at [airports](https://blog.aci.aero/physical-distancing-measures-in-airports-taking-steps-in-the-right-direction/) to prevent crowding.
1.5.4.2.1.1. Con: Even if social distancing is observed in airports, it is impossible to maintain on the planes themselves.
1.5.4.2.1.1.1. Con: Keeping middle seats empty can [reduce](https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/airline-news/2021/04/14/covid-travel-cdc-study-says-empty-middle-seats-social-distancing-planes-reduce-exposure/7224517002/)(The research, done in conjunction with Kansas State University, found a 23% to 57% reduction in exposure to "viable'' virus particles when middle seats are vacant.) exposure to virus particles by up to 57%.
1.5.4.2.2. Pro: It is very [difficult](https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/heathrow-airport-social-distancing-not-possible-crowds-842103) to enforce social distancing measures at [airports](https://www.forbes.com/sites/willmcgough/2020/06/18/covid-19-travel-update-social-distancing-at-the-airport-is-really-difficult-right-now/).
1.5.4.2.3. Pro: [More than 70 million passengers](https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/475537/London-Heathrow-the-best-facts-stats-and-trivia-behind-the-UK-s-busiest-airport) pass through London Heathrow airport every year.
1.5.4.2.3.1. Pro: The UK government has come under increasing [criticism](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56209431) for the long wait times and large crowds stuck at Heathrow during the pandemic.
1.5.4.2.4. Con: Unless domestic travel in larger countries is also banned, people will continue to gather in airports.
1.5.4.3. Pro: -> See 1.5.4.1.2.
1.5.4.4. Con: Social distancing involves limiting close contact between people. It could still be possible to travel internationally while maintaining a safe distance from those around you.
1.5.4.4.1. Pro: Several public health agencies have issued [guidelines](https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-safer-travel-guidance-for-passengers) on how to maintain social distancing while traveling in order to minimize the risk of infection.
1.5.4.4.2. Pro: '[Digital detox](https://www.news.com.au/national/travellers-opt-for-techfree-holidays-for-a-real-escape/news-story/3c4b5b1fc58662ae6f7709c348952c5a)' holidays, which are becoming increasingly popular, usually involve limited interactions with others.
1.5.5. Pro: Individuals can be [infected but asymptomatic](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-long-will-it-take-to-develop-a-coronavirus-vaccine). Thus, blocking borders entirely would have decreased the likelihood of those who do not appear to be infected from spreading the disease across borders.
1.5.5.1. Pro: Border control in all countries would enable countries to let in only those who are vaccinated, and thus effectively control the spread by only allowing entry to those who are [least likely](https://fortune.com/2021/04/01/its-official-vaccinated-people-dont-transmit-covid-19/) to be able to transmit the disease.
1.5.5.2. Con: Rapid COVID-19 test kits could be used to determine if a person is negative and therefore fit to travel.
1.5.5.2.1. Con: -> See 1.1.2.1.6.2.1.3.4.2.
1.5.5.2.2. Con: -> See 1.1.1.1.1.3.2.2.1.2.
1.5.6. Pro: A consistent global response may mean that people are more likely to take the recommended health measures seriously.
1.5.6.1. Pro: Many countries have imposed [lockdowns](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus/lockdowns-self-isolation-and-entry-bans-imposed-to-fight-global-coronavirus-spread-idUSKBN21208S) and recommended self-isolation, following cases of hard-hit countries around the world.
1.5.6.2. Pro: Individuals are likely to take the threat seriously if they see others all across the globe taking similar measures.
1.5.6.2.1. Con: In India, some people who are suspected of having COVID-19 are [fleeing quarantine](https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/india/coronavirus-why-are-people-running-away-from-quarantine-in-india-1.1584360825814).
1.5.6.3. Con: Conspiracy theorists could see a consistent global response as evidence of a [nefarious plot](https://english.alarabiya.net/coronavirus/2021/01/03/Coronavirus-Coronavirus-The-top-conspiracy-theories-surrounding-COVID-19) to control people.
1.5.6.3.1. Con: A small number of fringe conspiracy theorists should not affect the decision-making on such an important issue.
1.5.6.3.1.1. Con: [Significant portions](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/26/survey-uncovers-widespread-belief-dangerous-covid-conspiracy-theories)(Among the most widely believed Covid conspiracies is that the death rate of the virus, which according to the Johns Hopkins University tracker has so far killed nearly 1.1 million people worldwide, has been “deliberately and greatly exaggerated”. Nearly 60% of respondents in Nigeria said this was definitely or probably true, along with more than 40% in Greece, South Africa, Poland and Mexico. About 38% of Americans, 36% of Hungarians, 30% of Italians and 28% of Germans felt the same.) of numerous countries' populations believe some kind of COVID-19 conspiracy theories.
1.5.6.3.1.1.1. Pro: One survey [found](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/07/24/a-look-at-the-americans-who-believe-there-is-some-truth-to-the-conspiracy-theory-that-covid-19-was-planned/) that 25% of Americans believe that there is "some truth" to the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was planned by powerful actors.
1.5.7. Con: While closing borders may reduce the spread of the virus globally, it may have little effect on a national scale.
1.5.7.1. Pro: China and Italy quickly adopted stringent travel regulations but were [unable to avert a pandemic.​](https://www.vox.com/2020/3/12/21176669/travel-ban-trump-coronavirus-china-italy-europe)
1.5.7.1.1. Con: It is possible the pandemic would have been worse if borders remained open.
1.5.7.1.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.1.7.1.1.
1.5.7.1.3. Con: The travel quarantine imposed in [China](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6489/395) reduced international importations of infections by nearly 80% until mid-February of 2020.
1.5.7.2. Con: The purpose of closing borders would be to reduce the spread of the virus globally. Other measures would have to be taken to limit the spread domestically.
1.6. Pro: China was not being [transparent](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/world-health-organization-china-not-sharing-data-on-health-care-worker-coronavirus-infections/2020/02/26/28064fda-54e4-11ea-80ce-37a8d4266c09_story.html) enough with regards to the data they had on COVID-19, making the closure of borders to China the most logical option available to other countries.
1.6.1. Con: Even if China withheld data, [epidemiologists](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/pandemic-coronavirus-united-states-trump-cdc/608215/) had sufficient knowledge about coronavirus outbreaks and the steps required to contain their spread.
1.6.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.1.1.
1.6.3. Con: It is not transparency that drives countries to close borders, but the awareness of the potential damage of not doing so.
1.6.3.1. Con: Transparency plays a key role in such decisions. For example, whether the reported cases by China were 1x or 1/40x the actual number would be likely to influence the policies of other countries, including their policies regarding border control.
1.6.4. Con: Other countries also have case and/or death figures that are questionable or known to be flawed due to reporting processes.
1.6.4.1. Pro: The UK's death data may be [underreported](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/22/uk-official-covid-death-toll-undercounted-fatalities), due to the way COVID-19 cases are mentioned on death certificates.
1.6.4.1.1. Pro: The UK's reporting process even for deaths in hospitals has a [significant lag](https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-deaths-statistics-data-cases-accuracy/), resulting in short-term underreporting until data filters through into the national figures.
1.6.4.2. Pro: There are [many reasons to doubt the accuracy of Iran's data](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51930856), from early downplaying of the situation by officials to on-the-ground reporting of deaths and cases not likely to be included in official statistics due to testing and hospital capacity limitations.
1.6.4.3. Pro: Given Russia's extensive border with China, and large number of international visitors, their reported infection rate has been met with [significant scepticism](https://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-reporting-covid-19-cases-cover/story?id=69717763).
1.6.4.3.1. Pro: The test they're using is around 10-16 times [less sensitive](https://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-reporting-covid-19-cases-cover/story?id=69717763)(But the Russian test, PCR News wrote, only detects the virus when there are over 100,000 copies of it per milliliter in a sample. That is far more than in other countries’ tests. A test in use in the U.S., for example, will pick up the virus with just 6,250 copies.) than ones used by other countries.
1.6.4.3.2. Pro: There appears to be [a significant peak in pneumonia cases](https://abcnews.go.com/International/russia-reporting-covid-19-cases-cover/story?id=69717763) currently occurring in Moscow compared to a similar period in previous years.
1.6.4.4. Con: If this is the case, countries should not relax their border control, but should rather block their borders to all non-transparent nations, including China.
1.6.5. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.1.1.1.1.
1.6.6. Pro: China has [not released](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2021-02-26/china-must-stop-hiding-its-vaccine-data) much of the data regarding its vaccine production.
1.6.6.1. Con: This isn't a huge loss, as there were already many alternative vaccines available by the time Sinovac was developed.
1.6.6.1.1. Pro: As of April 2021, there are [dozens of vaccines](https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/3/covid-19-vaccine-tracker) available now or in the testing phases.
1.6.6.1.2. Con: Considering China's considerable manufacturing ability, having a high quality Chinese vaccine might help alleviate the [vaccine shortage](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56659206) and supply chain problems in some countries.
1.6.6.2. Pro: The [effectiveness](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55212787) of the Sinovac vaccine is questionable and requires further research.
1.6.6.2.1. Pro: China's top disease control official [claimed](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56713663) that the vaccine's effectiveness was low, and studies from abroad suggested it could be as low as 50%.
1.6.6.3. Pro: The Sinovac vaccine has been [linked](https://www.biospace.com/article/death-disability-among-side-effects-of-chinese-covid-19-vaccines-leaked-documents-reveal/) to a number of possible side effects.
1.6.6.3.1. Con: The Sinovac vaccine has already been [rolled out](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3128121/chiles-big-coronavirus-vaccine-bet-chinas-sinovac-shots) in [multiple](http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-04/01/c_139853120.htm) [countries](http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-03/18/c_139819775.htm) without widespread reports of serious side effects.
1.6.6.4. Con: Vaccines weren't being developed until long after the virus had [spread](https://graphics.reuters.com/CHINA-HEALTH-MAP/0100B59S39E/index.html) beyond China, rendering the point moot as to whether its borders should have been blocked.
1.6.7. Pro: International organizations and countries have voiced their concerns over China's lack of transparency.
1.6.7.1. Pro: Data regarding infections to front line workers can help [other countries](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/world-health-organization-china-not-sharing-data-on-health-care-worker-coronavirus-infections/2020/02/26/28064fda-54e4-11ea-80ce-37a8d4266c09_story.html) with preparedness training. Thus, not sharing this data puts others at risk.
1.6.7.2. Pro: Leaked US intelligence reporting suggests China's publicly-released counts of total cases and deaths are [incomplete or even faked](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-01/china-concealed-extent-of-virus-outbreak-u-s-intelligence-says?utm_source=twitter&utm_content=business&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business).
1.6.7.2.1. Pro: On April 17th 2020, the Chinese city of Wuhan raised its official COVID-19 death toll by [50%](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-52321529), further fuelling suspicions that it has been withholding key information from other nations.
1.6.7.3. Pro: China has [refused](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-56054468) to handover data to the WHO team investigating the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic.
1.6.7.3.1. Con: The WHO released a report on March 30, 2021 that sought to [explain](https://www.who.int/news/item/30-03-2021-who-calls-for-further-studies-data-on-origin-of-sars-cov-2-virus-reiterates-that-all-hypotheses-remain-open) the origins of the virus in Wuhan, China with Chinese assistance.
1.6.7.3.1.1. Con: The findings of the report were tentative, not conclusive, and some scientists are [skeptical](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00865-8)(A small group of scientists have sent letters to the media saying that they wouldn’t trust the outcome of the investigation because it was closely overseen by China’s government.) about the amount of access the WHO was given by Chinese authorities.
1.6.7.4. Con: American officials repeatedly made comments praising China's transparency early in the pandemic.
1.6.7.4.1. Pro: According to former White House adviser, Jared Kushner, [China was being very transparent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=af3DxS5vkL0) regarding COVID-19. Thus, an argument for blocking borders premised on China's supposed lack of transparency does not hold.
1.6.7.4.2. Pro: Donald Trump repeatedly [praised](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/21/politics/trump-china-praise-coronavirus-timeline/index.html) China's transparency and handling of the virus.
1.6.7.4.3. Con: This early praise was soon reversed as American officials [blamed](https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/10/08/trump-is-demanding-china-pay-big-price-for-covid-19/?sh=3ea7ddad41c8) China for failing to stop the spread of the virus.
1.6.7.5. Con: The WHO repeatedly [praised](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinese-officials-note-serious-problems-in-coronavirus-response-the-world-health-organization-keeps-praising-them/2020/02/08/b663dd7c-4834-11ea-91ab-ce439aa5c7c1_story.html) China's transparency early in the pandemic.
1.6.7.5.1. Con: The WHO itself came under [intense](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/13/white-house-who-covid-findings-468990) [criticism](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/30/us-joins-13-other-nations-in-criticizing-whos-china-covid-report.html) for their own lack of transparency when discussing the Chinese response.
1.6.7.5.2. Con: Despite public praise for China, many WHO officials privately expressed [frustration](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/how-china-blocked-who-chinese-scientists-early-coronavirus-outbreak-n1222246) at the lack of access they were given early in the pandemic.